5.  The applicant was born in 1975. Before his imprisonment he had been living in Staryy Krym.
6.  On 26 February 2005 the Prosecutor's Office of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the Prosecutor's Office”) instituted criminal proceedings into allegations that the applicant, a police officer at the time, had abused his power. The applicant was suspected of having abused his police power which resulted, inter alia, in the ill-treatment of suspects he had been working with and unlawful searches of their homes.
7.  On 28 February 2005 the applicant was arrested on this account.
8.  On 3 March 2005 the applicant was brought before the Tsentralnyy District Court of Simferopol (“the District Court”) which decided to extend the applicant's detention until 10 March 2005. The District Court also ordered the Prosecutor's Office to find more information on the applicant's personality, his state of health, his role in the alleged crime, so that it could reach a reasoned decision regarding the applicant's further detention.
9.  On 10 March 2005 the District Court extended the applicant's detention for two months, stating that he had been charged with a serious crime and, if at liberty, could impede the investigation. The District Court rejected the applicant's contention that, for health reasons, he could not be detained in custody, noting that the evidence presented in that respect had been unreliable.
10.  On 22 March 2005, following an appeal by the applicant, the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld the decision of 10 March 2005.
11.  On 26 April 2005, following a submission by the Prosecutor's Office, the District Court extended the applicant's detention until 28 June 2005, stating that he had been charged with a serious crime and, if at liberty, could impede the investigation.
12.  On 17 May 2005, having considered an appeal by the applicant against the decision of 26 April 2005, the Court of Appeal rejected it as unsubstantiated. It stated, however, that, under the applicable rules, the applicant's detention could only be extended to 26 June 2005 and therefore amended the decision of 26 April 2005 accordingly.
13.  On 24 June 2005 the Prosecutor's Office referred the case file to the Chairman of the Court of Appeal to determine which trial court would consider the applicant's case.
14.  On 4 July 2005 the Chairman of the Court of Appeal referred the case to the Feodosiya Town Court (“the Town Court”) for trial.
15.  On 10 August 2005 the Town Court committed the applicant for trial. It also upheld the preventive measure applied to the applicant (detention in custody). No time-limit or reasons for the applicant's further detention were offered in that decision.
16.  On 4 January 2006, having examined the case, the Town Court found the applicant guilty of abuse of power and sentenced him to five years and six months' imprisonment. The court also prohibited the applicant from occupying law-enforcement posts for three years and ordered his property to be confiscated. The applicant appealed.
17.  On 20 January 2006 the local newspaper “T.” published an interview with the Prosecutor of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Mr Sh. The interview was entitled “The criminals will be put in prison”. In the interview Mr Sh. stated, in particular, the following:
“... The criminal proceedings have been instituted against three police officers of the Kirovskyy Police Department — Mr Znaykin, Mr M., and Mr V. — who, in 2004, unlawfully arrested three citizens, beat them up, and then unlawfully carried out searches of their homes. ...”
18.  On 4 February 2006 the governor of the Feodosiya Temporary Detention Centre (“the Feodosiya ITT”) allegedly refused the applicant a family visit even though permission had been obtained from the court. According to the applicant, the duration of the other family visits, granted in that detention centre, was shorter than that provided by the domestic law.
19.  On 25 May 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld the applicant's conviction, following which the judgment of 4 January 2006 came into effect. The applicant appealed in cassation but did not complain that he had not been provided with sufficient time and facilities to prepare his defence or that his right to presumption of innocence had been impaired.
20.  On 29 May 2006 the applicant complained to the General Prosecutor's Office, alleging that his right to presumption of innocence had been breached as a result of the publication of Mr Sh.'s interview by the local newspaper on 20 January 2006.
21.  On 24 July 2006 the Prosecutor's Office, to which the complaint had apparently been redirected, replied to the applicant that there had been no violation of presumption of innocence on account of the above-mentioned interview.
22.  On 30 November 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's cassation appeal as unsubstantiated.
23.  Between 22 March 2005 and 9 July 2006 the applicant was held in the Simferopol Pre-Trial Detention Centre (“the Simferopol SIZO”) and the Feodosiya ITT.
24.  The applicant submitted that he had been held with nine or ten other detainees in cell no. 76 at the Simferopol SIZO, which measured 10.8 sq. m. The cell was equipped with nine bunks stacked in three tiers. The toilet was not separated from the living area and provided no privacy. Because the table in the cell was very small, the detainees had to take it in turns to eat. The applicant had to wash his clothes in the cell, because the laundry service only accepted bed sheets. Daily exercise sessions outside the cell lasted only thirty or forty minutes and were organised in the SIZO's roof-covered yards. Those submissions were confirmed by the signatures of the other nine detainees held with the applicant. Despite the fact that the applicant suffered from hypertension, he was not provided with sufficient medical care.
25.  The applicant complained to the officials of the Simferopol SIZO about the conditions of his detention, but to no avail.
26.  In the Feodosiya ITT the applicant was held together with another detainee in a cell which measured 4 sq. m, of which the toilet and the washstand occupied 1.5 sq. m; there were no windows, no table and no chairs, and the ventilation was unsatisfactory. Subsequently, the applicant was moved to a cell measuring 4.8 sq. m, which he shared with five or six other detainees. The toilet was not separated from the living area, which therefore denied any privacy. There was no table and no chair. In support of his submissions the applicant provided statements from eight co-detainees.
27.  On 8 February 2006 the applicant unsuccessfully complained to the prosecutor supervising detention facilities, alleging that the conditions of his detention in the Feodosiya ITT were unsatisfactory.
28.  As regards the Simferopol SIZO, the Government submitted that the applicant had been held in cell no. 156, which measured 29.2 sq. m and in which there were between nine and eleven detainees. Subsequently, he had been held in cell no. 76 which measured 12.3 sq. m and in which there were a total of eight detainees.
29.  The sanitary units were separated from the other area of the cells; the furniture was appropriate; the laundry operated smoothly; the applicant was offered one-hour periods of daily outdoor exercise. As to the medical care, the applicant was duly inspected upon his arrival at that facility. According to a written statement by the head of the Simferopol SIZO, the applicant made no complaints to the medical staff on account of his health.
30.  As to the Feodosiya ITT, the Government submitted that the applicant was held in the following cells:
- cell no. 3, measuring 4.74 sq. m, in which the applicant was held with one detainee;
- cell no. 5, measuring 5.88 sq. m, in which there were a total of four detainees;
- cell no. 2.7 measuring 5.28 sq. m, in which there were between five and eight detainees.
31.  Despite the fact that there were no windows in the cells, the lighting and ventilation systems were operating properly. The cells were equipped with furniture.